The Supreme Court granted certiorari in eight cases today:
Bank of America Corp. v. Miami, No. 15-1111; Wells Fargo & Co. v. Miami, 15-1112: (1) Whether the term “aggrieved” in the Fair Housing Act imposes a zone-of-interests requirement more stringent than the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III. (2) Whether the City is an “aggrieved person” under the Fair Housing Act. (3) Does proximate cause for purposes of the Fair Housing Act require more than just the possibility that a defendant could have foreseen that the remote plaintiff might ultimately lose money through some theoretical chain of contingencies?
Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp., No. 14-1055: (1) Whether the phrase “to sue and be sued, and to complain and to defend, in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal” in Fannie Mae’s charter confers original jurisdiction over every case brought by or against Fannie Mae to the federal courts. (2) Whether the majority’s decision in Am. Nat’l Red Cross v. S.G., 505 U.S. 247 (1992) (5-4 decision), should be reversed.
Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne Int’l, No. 15-423: Whether the pleading standard for alleging that a case falls within the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s expropriation exception, 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(3), is more demanding than the standard for pleading jurisdiction under the federal-question statute, which allows a jurisdictional dismissal only if the federal claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.
Ivy v. Morath, No. 15-486: In the context of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, did the Fifth Circuit err in deciding that the relationship between public and private actors does not invoke dual obligations to accommodate in any context other than an express contractual relationship between a public entity and its private vendor?
Fry v. Napoleon Community Sch., No. 15-497: Whether the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act of 1986, 20 U.S.C. §1415(l), commands exhaustion in a suit, brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, that seeks damages—a remedy that is not available under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649: Whether a bankruptcy court may authorize the distribution of settlement proceeds in a manner that violates the Bankruptcy Code’s statutory priority scheme.
Visa Inc. v. Osborn, No. 15-961; Visa Inc. v. Stoubos, 15-962: Whether allegations that members of a business association agreed to adhere to the association’s rules and possess governance rights in the association, without more, are sufficient to plead the element of conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1, as the Court of Appeals held below, or are insufficient, as the Third, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have held.
Lynch v. Morales-Santana, No. 15-1191: (1) Whether Congress’s decision to impose a different physical-presence requirement on unwed citizen mothers of foreign-born children than on other citizen parents of foreign-born children through 8 U.S.C. §1401 and §1409 (1958) violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. (2) Whether the court of appeals erred in conferring U.S. citizenship on respondent, in the absence of any express statutory authority to do so.